In Re Guardianship of Drrr

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLICATION June 17, 2025 1:50 PM In re GUARDIANSHIP OF DRRR. No. 372523 Macomb Probate Court Family Division LC No. 2024-247892-GM Before: WALLACE, P.J., and RICK and GARRETT, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this case involving guardianship, DRRR’s guardian (appellant) appeals as of right the order denying appellant’s motion for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) determinations. We vacate the August 5, 2024 order of the probate court and exercise our discretion to make each finding pertinent to DRRR’s SIJ status by a preponderance of the evidence, and find that DRRR was born on May 25, 2006, in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, she is under 21 years old, and is an unmarried minor under the laws of the State of Michigan. We further find the following: (1) that DRRR was declared dependent on the State of Michigan, Macomb County Probate Court by virtue of guardianship proceedings, resulting in the appointment of her sister as her full legal guardian; (2) that DRRR’s reunification with her father is not viable due to neglect and abandonment, and reunification with her mother is not viable due to neglect; and (3) that DRRR’s best interests would not be served by returning to her country of origin, Guatemala. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant is DRRR’s older sister. They share the same parents. Appellant filed a petition on January 18, 2024, seeking to become DRRR’s full guardian, as well as a request for the suspension of fees due to indigency. When the petition was filed, DRRR was 17 years old and still a minor. DRRR was born in Guatemala and came to the United States to live with appellant in October 2021. Appellant was provided a temporary power of attorney for DRRR by the Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (CRI). While in Guatemala, DRRR lived in poverty and frequently missed meals. She could not focus on her studies because she was working with her -1- mother every day of the week. Their father was abusive to their mother and abandoned the family when DRRR was one or two years of age. Their mother was aware of the petition for guardianship. On February 13, 2024, appellant filed a request for an interpreter, which the court granted the same day.1 After a hearing on April 16, 2024, the probate court found that (1) DRRR was unmarried; (2) DRRR was not living with a parent when the petition was filed; and (3) DRRR needed a guardian because her parent permitted her to reside with appellant, but did not provide appellant with legal authority over DRRR’s care and maintenance. The court granted the petition and appointed appellant as DRRR’s full guardian. At the April 16, 2024 hearing, appellant’s attorney asked the court to also rule on her motion for special determinations on the issue of SIJ classification status; however, the court declined, indicating the motion could not be filed until after a determination was made on the petition for guardianship.2 Later that day, the court accepted the filing of appellant’s motion to make factual findings regarding DRRR’s SIJ classification and a hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2024, which was only five days before DRRR’s 18th birthday. The May 20, 2024 hearing on appellant’s motion began as scheduled at 9:12 a.m. The court noted that there was no translator present and that appellant had not submitted the court’s form for requesting a translator for the hearing.3 Although a certified foreign language translator was not present at the hearing, appellant’s attorney had a person capable of translating present at the hearing, as permitted under MCR 1.111(F)(2), yet the trial court refused to accept her as a translator because she was not certified by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO). Because the hearing had been noticed to occur that morning, the trial court gave appellant’s counsel until 11:30 a.m. to procure a certified interpreter. Appellant’s attorney then procured a SCAO- certified interpreter who could only appear via videoconferencing because she was located two hours away from the courthouse. Counsel informed the court’s clerk, but was subsequently told that the court would only allow an in-person interpreter.4